In explaining his opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of David Souter, Walter Friedlieb (Voice, Aug. 11) writes that Souter has never married and raised a family. Apparently Friedlieb believes this leaves Souter as unqualified to judge cases involving people who have.
There are probably a thousand and one life experiences-discrimination of various sorts, corporate issues involving a multitude of different kinds of businesses, and a variety of violent crimes-a judge may preside over in court with which he has had no personal experience. Indeed, he may even, as a married man, have to deal with single people, in which case, by Friedlieb`s logic, Souter should be confirmed in order to counterbalance the other justices who are married.
Let us hope our reasons are more sensible than that. What a judge has to have is a knowledge of the law and an ability to interpret it competently. When we can look at a legal opinion and determine the personal experiences and views of a judge on the issue in point, that judge is abusing his authority and should be removed from the bench.
